You are hereForums / Future of the GOP-- How to get Our Party Back / One Election Where I Hope All RFOers Will Support McCain

One Election Where I Hope All RFOers Will Support McCain

By Brandon - Posted on 27 January 2010

John McCain is getting a primary challenge from former congressman J.D. Hayworth.

J.D. on Chris Matthews last night crossed over into nut land last night when he gave his support to the "birthers" by saying:

"Well, gosh, we all had to bring our birth certificates to show we were who we said we were, and we were the age we said we were, to play football in youth sports. Shouldn't we know exactly that anyone who wants to run for public office is a natural born citizen of the United States, and is who they say they are?"

"I'm just saying the president should come forward with the information, that's all. Why must we depend on the governor of Hawaii?"


I can't believe any serious conservative still has this kind of nonsense coming out of their mouth in 2010.

I hope everyone here hopes McCain wins his Arizona Senate primary. 

I do hope he wins the primary.  If I lived in Arizona and could vote in the Republican Primary he would get my vote.  


Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is. 

-- Benjamin Franklin

"Well, gosh, we all had to bring our birth certificates to show we were who we said we were, and we were the age we said we were, to play football in youth sports.

They did?!!  Strict state, I think Maryland just needed a note from your mother.

I believe McCain will win. He has class. I just like to tease him.

Rasmussen: Following news that Sarah Palin will campaign for him in Arizona, Senator John McCain has opened a significant lead in the Republican Primary campaign.

John McCain 53%, J.D. Hayworth 31% 

It'll be good for Palin, since this would distance herself from the birthers, who are now thoroughly politically radioactive.

It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.

Lewis Black

I absolutely, wholeheartedly support McCain, though I don't live in his state so can't cast a vote for him.

I doubt seriously that his opponent has any chance whatsoever.

I have always liked McCain; before his choice of Palin, I felt completely confident that -- while I was voting for Obama -- we would be just fine if McCain won.  His campaign got a little schizophrenic, though: choosing Palin; the obvious fact that the management of it wasn't as seamlessly executed as Obama's.... That doesn't mean I wish him bad things in life.  I respect his dedication to public service, both in the military and politics. 

I support the old McCain. You know, the maverick who would vote against party lines, stand up for his beliefs. Now he's dropped his passion for immigration reform, campaign finance reform (barely a scolding of the Supreme Court decision), and even voted against a debt commission. Not someone I can trust-sorry. Everything he is doing is pandering to the extremists. Thankfully he hasn't asked to see Obama's birth certificate yet, but if the race gets closer, it won't shock me. He lost me when he chose Palin. Now is he better than Hayworth? No question. So yes-I'd support him in the primary, but not in the general. BTW-his approval rating in Arizona is at 40%. Not looking great for him.

I think the Arizona and Florida primaries are similar. You have a right-wing opponent, with support from extremists and Tea Partiers trying to get rid of the moderate guy. If Rubio and Hayworth succeed, I sure hope they suffer a great defeat in the general election.

I do need to applaud Charlie Crist. Unlike McCain, who seems to be flip flopping on everything that was important to him (even after saying he was greatly influenced by Powell on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"-he still won't support it even though Powell now supports it!)  Crist seems not as willing to "play along." With the exciting news for Florida (high speed rail announcement last week)which brought a visit from President Obama, many Republicans were encouraging Crist to blow him off, not meet with him (heaven forbid, someone might take your picture!) How low have we gotten when a governor, who is being rewarded a major "prize" that will bring jobs and progressive transportationto his state, can not even meet with the President of the United States? From Politico. Here is Crist defending himself against the extremists.

Just this week McCain made it more difficult to support him when he made yet another flip flop with his stances when he talked about the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy. John Oliver joked about McCain not flip-flopping but he just forgot what he said in his old age.

Oh yes fabulous more wasted tax money on a transportation system that serves few and costs much. 


Surely you respect someone like Bruce Bartlett? He seems to have alot more hope for President Obama and his proposal than for the games Republicans continue to play.

We can hand pick as many programs we disagree with and scream about waste, but I'm afraid the deficit issue is not there because President Obama is proposing too many jobs programs. Projects like the high speed rail may actually help us  in terms of long-term growth.

The deficit likely would have been the same under McCain (although maybe worse since he'd continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, ignore banking regulation, and perhaps spend more on the military.)

Pray tell me how in any scenario can high speed rail help anyone in terms of long term growth 

The founders of transportation economics, like John Meyer and the deeply missed John Kain, found that the benefits of passenger rail rarely exceeded the costs.

Their views were caricatured by generations of Harvard graduate students as “Bus Good, Train Bad.” Is money really better spent on fast trains than on educating our children?

I would be delighted to share the president’s optimism about high-speed rail, but if benefits do not exceed the costs, then America will just be living through a real-life version of “Marge vs. the Monorail,” where the residents of the Simpsons’ Springfield were foolishly infatuated with a snazzy rail project oversold in  song by Phil Hartman’s character.

Combining reduced carbon emissions, reduced congestion and reduced traffic mortality provides an extra $21.63 million worth of benefits a year from the rail line, which increases the $102 million benefit minus operating costs figure from last week to $124 million, which is still far less than the $648 million estimated cost per year of building and maintaining the infrastructure.

Facts about California's High Speed Rail

and can you stop this whole crap about Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy?  last i checked a lot of folks got tax cuts- refer to table 4

i seriously am doubting your assertion that you read about both sides of an issue
McCain had said years ago, "I defer to people like Colin Powell. Military leaders have told us DADT is good policy. When military leaders tell us otherwise, we can consider changing it." I honestly feel he was hoping this can would just keep being kicked down the road and never really thought top military leaders would ever embrace this change. Such top-notch faces in support of this have even caused Orin Hatch to make a statement saying he would consider changing it. Will others follow? So much progress in just a few days. Come on McCain, there is still a little time to redeem yourself!

Have you read the other side? From Environmental Law and Policy Center:

New jobs and economic growth = $9.1 billion

For the City of Chicago, a high speed rail hub will have the equivalent economic impact of a medium-sized airport located in the heart of the central business district – without having to displace a single office.

15,000 jobs during construction, and 2,000 permanent jobs during operation.

The Midwest’s railcar manufacturing industry will prosper as a result of the addition of high-speed rail to the region.

As the redevelopment of train stations in Washington D.C. and Kalamazoo have demonstrated, train terminals can become the focal points for commercial redevelopment and promote substantial new development in surrounding areas. A study for the City of Chicago estimated that high speed rail would bring $8-10 billion dollars of new economic activity to Chicago.

A high speed rail network pulls together the regional economy and promotes intra-regional business growth. The economic impact of Midwestern intra-regional trade greatly exceeds the potential benefits of increased trade with Canada and Mexico spurred by NAFTA.

The development of improved rail service can provide a significant boost to travel and tourism by facilitating weekend leisure trips by families from smaller towns to the major cities and vice versa.


  • Once built, high-speed rail in the Midwest will pay for itself.
  • Every dollar of cost yields between $1.70 and $2.50 of benefits


The politics of it aside.....The people of so many nations depend on high speed rail; there must be a good reason. I think we Americans are far to dependent on our automobiles.  That will be a hard habit to break, but one that will benefit us in many ways once we do.

and can you stop this whole crap about Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy?  last i checked a lot of folks got tax cuts- refer to table 4 

geesh-testy today? Happy Thursday to you, too.  Yeah, other folks got tax cuts too (which were not paid for btw) but you can't tell me the wealthy did not do much better under Bush (this trend starting years before as seen in the articles) than the middle class. It's just a fact. In general, the disparity between top CEO income vs. low level worker in the same company and it grew enormously in recent years-eye popping stuff! Here's another link on the topic.

But something is wrong. The income gap is growing faster in the United States than in any other developed nation. Between 1990 and 2000 in the U.S. worker pay and inflation remained approximately equal, while corporate profits rose 93% and CEO pay rose 571%. Meanwhile, the portion of federal revenue derived from corporate income tax has decreased from 33% in the 1950s to 11.9% in 2005, reaching a low of 7.4% in 2003. Hundreds of companies have avoided taxes by relocating to tax havens such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. Eighty-two of our largest corporations paid no tax in at least one of the first three years of the Bush administration.

No offense, Mary Moo, but have you ever seen a child get a bowl of ice cream and automatically get upset that she didn't get sprinkles? Sometimes that's how I feel with your posts. I'd love to know what would actually put a smile on your face or at least take a little gloom out of your outlook. I wish I could send you flowers or tickle you, I feel bad.

Don't we want to strive for what we see in Europe? Why are we always so far behind? As President Obama said, we shouldn't want to settle for 2nd place. Honestly, I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of the benefits vs. the cost of high speed rail. It seems experts are all over the place, based on complex mathematical formulas that often assume certain things that may or may not happen.

My orignial point of the post had little to do with high speed rail and more to do with the shameful politics that politicians can't just be civil enough to greet and stand with the President when an appropriate moment presents itself. The Democrats aren't innocent here either. They kind of pinned the Republicans into doing the same thing with George W. Bush before election time. They were afraid it would be used in ads against them. Just sad the games they still play. Does President Obama often seem like the only adult in the room, or is it just me?

The problem with rail in the U.S. is that the country is so big.  European nations are a lot smaller and their cities are much more dense.  

Before I could get on board with high speed rail, I'd want to see some very scholarly independent studies stating that it would be used.

Look at Amtrak which has lost billions for years.  Amtrak's Sunset Limited which runs from Los Angeles to New Orleans loses almost $500 per passenger.  Money that has to be made up by the taxpayers.  

It would be cheaper for the government to simply buy these Amtrak passengers airplane tickets.

Brandon I agree that the country is too big for high speed rail to function as well as it does in Europe. However there are certainly corridors of travel that would benefit, especially since, unless there is a new breakthrough in the technology, fuel costs are just going to keep going up.  The train has a definate edge in fuel savings. As far as density goes, that will follow the type of transportation available.

Speaking only for myself and my close family the only problem with rail as opposed to air is that it takes too long. I don't know where the break point would be to make rail attractive enough to compete with airlines.

I would love to see however Americans move away from the dependance on the automobile.  The improvement in air quality would be dramatic.

It is a pity that the costs of polllution are never used in the equation.  How would airplanes and autos compare then?


I agree that a nationwide high speed rail system would not be practical, or logical at this point.  As, you say Amtrak loses quite a bit on their cross-country routes.  

However, I think that a regional system of high speed rail would be a very good idea.  I envision a system that independently connects the large cities/suburbs of the West Coast, East Coast, Mid-West, Great-Lakes, South, Rocky Mountain States, and Texas in a corridor system.  

For example a hub & spoke system that connects Chicago with Omaha, Des Moines, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Detroit (and those cities with each other would be wonderful. 

I would imagine a system that connected Atlanta with the cites of the south (including Memphis), or a system that connected Ft. Collins and Denver with Santa Fe and Albuquerque would be very successful.   


Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is. 

-- Benjamin Franklin

My niece's husband has worked for the rail road for over 15 yrs now.! he said, Not only do we need high speed rail to keep up w/other countries higher technology, but it will put thousands of temp. workers on line, as well as a few thousands with higher educational training. Once again Young teens will talk about being a engineer or rail road worker. The Equipment they use is extrememly high tech. today he says, an it takes a lot of training. So that means long term workers. It's more efficient,faster an as our sky's become to crowded with plane travel, more will look to the rail road in the future. As far as Mccain goes, the man exhaust me trying to keep up w/his flip flopping. I hope Arizona has the sense to look for some one younger, higher tech. an involvement.Some one with abundance of energy to keep up with the new world we will head into after this recovery of our economy! Mccains time is gone, as it is w/a lot of the dinasours on the Hill. You can respect them for their service, give them a pension an thank them and sent them home now. That goes for B. Franks, keep Newt out, huck, Reid,Polosi, Byrd an a few more who's just to old to have the energy to keep up w/what needs to be acomplished in Washington. MY Sen's Both Johanne an Ben Nelsen need to take a vacation as they have their hand to deep in the pockets of the Ins. comp. in Ne.

Once again Young teens will talk about being a engineer or rail road worker. The Equipment they use is extrememly high tech.

What an outstanding point, Jupitor!!!

Too many people complain that the U.S. doesn't "produce" anything anymore; fact is, we are the world's leading exporter of engineering services.  During the campaign, Obama talked at length about the need to educate engineers to build our own country, and to export services outside.

We have high unemployment with too many college grads looking at too few job opportunities.  What field has almost guaranteed jobs?  Engineering. 

Instead, too many pre-college and college-aged students want to get into the field they think is going to make them "rich," (usually finance... perhaps the last two years will change their expectations).  I wish more would realize that engineers -- at least for the foreseeable future -- have great job prospects and job security. 


I thought that she meant "train engineers".

Personally, I would love to work for the railroad. Are they hiring?

Heh -- I would also like to have become a computer or electronics engineer but my life took a different path, away from school. Oh, well. Opportunities lost and all that.

**turning red**

I'm sure you're correct.  However, train engineers must be highly educated and skilled at what they do as well -- I'm pretty sure to the same degree as mechanical, chemical, et al. 


Well, not quite, unless you are confusing "railroad engineers" with the civil engineers who build roads and bridges and etc.

But it would still be a good job.

I also think that we need to have good jobs which do not necessarily require higher education. 

I agree very strongly with that last sentence Tin.  Not all kids are college material for varying reasons.  There needs to be not only jobs for them, but respect for the work they do.
and add to that a liveable wage with affordable access to health care

We have high unemployment with too many college grads looking at too few job opportunities.

Speaking of which, unemployment rate edged down to 9.7%. Still not out of the woods, but hopefully we will continue that pattern. Economists had expected it to remain at 10%.

I must admit I was confused as to how we could have a drop in uneployment rate when the number of payroll jobs lost was 20,000.

According to Reuters - the number of people no longer seeking work rose to 1.1 million (was 734,000 last year) -Not included in that 1.1 million are the number of retirees, which would have an effect.

How this information is crunched to achieve a true indication of economic health I would have no idea.  The general feel from the experts quoted in the article is, good but not great news.


That puts things in better perspective, still it is a very shallow uptick overall. I hope the curve increases.

This was put out by the DNC based on the Bureau of Labor Statisitcs. It certainly calls into question the way the Republicans paint President Obama and the direction he is taking the country. The media should be reporting things like this, but they allow the "spin" with little effort to set the record straight.

The red bars are the accelerating rate of job loss during President Bush's last year in office; the blue bars are the decelerating rate of job loss during President Obama's first year of office.

image content

The Rail Road has slowed in hireing. They are looking forward to the bump up in hireing come spring, an ground breaks on the new Rail System. My Niece's husband is hopeing he can bump up to it, but they often put bids in on the equipment handling, so he never knows if some one with more senority or experience will bump him off a job he wants to keep or go to. It's complicated how they become employed, where they are sent or where they will be even from day to day. He's gone some times for a month, an others for a few days. Home time isn't Regular at any time, except emergencies, or vacation times asked for an paid for. Some hired on learn on the job training for manual labor, an they do send some to school on training to an pay for it. Obama was wise to invest in this area for a number of reason. It helps the uneducated an educated worker to progress.

The Rocky Mountain Poll released Wednesday shows McCain leading former U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth
64 percent to 19 percent.



Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook




RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for We will never share or sell your email address.